Model, Lizzie Miller--size 14
I'm sure most of you ladies out there saw a photo similar to this of model, Lizzie Miller, that had everyone freaking right out because of the "realness" of this young woman's body. Lizzie was shown, much like this photo, in her undies, tummy and all. I read that she's 5'11" and 180 lbs. Apparently women were bursting into tears over seeing someone other than a size 00 in Glamour Magazine, where Lizzie's photo was first seen by the public.
Now there's a semi-backlash brewing by a writer for The Times of London, named India Knight, who feels that women do not want to see an $8000 dress on a size 14 woman, but rather on a size 4. (First of all, there are no size 4 models in these magazines. They are size zero, or nothing at all. Wait. That's redundant.)
I'd like to know how YOU, my precious readers feel. I most certainly welcome the gentlemen to speak up, too. I'm not looking for everyone to say one thing or another. I'd really like to know how you feel about the photo of LIzzie, and if you really want "real" women in fashion magazine--and HEY, how about men? Do we want to see size 40 waist dudes in GQ. too? Why not? OR, do we need the illusion and dream when we read Vogue?
.jpg)
+v.3.jpg){kind=small}
Posts
8 comments:
Hi Jules, I think this is a typical "either or" scenario. I love to see the scrawny ass models in haute couture, and I like to see ads featuring real women. And I like to see the real celebs at all stages of their lives, preggers, post baby, etc. Think about it: if our bodies didn't change, we wouldn't need to shop!
The only magazines I read regularly are Elle and Glamour and frankly I don't care either way. I understand that women of all shapes, sizes and ages want to see themselves be represented but until the fashion industry and the magazine industry really take a look at who is actually buying their mags and clothes, nothing is going to change.
I say it's nice to see a little reality to balance things a little. It reminds us that we don't live in some kind of Victoria Beckham Utopia where we have to look less than a size 4 or we don't fit in (hihi - bit of a pun there!). But seriously we might appreciate seeing a chubbier woman in the glossy magazines but to be honest not many of us would aspire to be like her when you've got Bar Rafaeli in the same mag.
i like to see women of all shapes and sizes... just because you are asize 14 doesnt mean you are less beautiful than someone who is a size 2 or 00... ill admit.. i would like to see more "plus" size (and i use the quot marks beacause the average american woman is like a 10 or 12) seeimng as how im a 10...( i dont consider myself a "big " girl.. i got some junk in the trunk , but hey.) i would like to see what the newest styles of the season look like on someone my size...but i do know that they dont want someone like me walking around in haute couture..because i dont "belong" in it.... well im a woman so if i dont belong in it .. who does? as for the skinnier girls they get a lot of slack too.. just because youre skinny doesnt mean you starve yourself or have jars of vomit in your closet.. we are who we are and we are ALL beautiful and magazine-worthy.
I think Lizzie is absolutely gorgeous and I have no problem seeing women of various sizes in magazines. What annoys and aggravates me is all of the negative comments about the skinnier models not being realistic and they shouldn’t be in magazines at all. Why is it that when talking about “true beauty” or “real women” it only includes larger sized women? There are women and girls who are smaller sized so dismissing them as “unrealistic” isn’t right either. If as a society we’re talking about real women and true beauty it not only encompasses the sizes 14, but the 00 as well. I’m 5’11’’, 125 pounds and I’m real too dammit. *end rant* lol
I think Lizzie is absolutely gorgeous and I have no problem seeing women of various sizes in magazines. What annoys and aggravates me is all of the negative comments about the skinnier models not being realistic and they shouldn’t be in magazines at all. Why is it that when talking about “true beauty” or “real women” it only includes larger sized women? There are women and girls who are smaller sized so dismissing them as “unrealistic” isn’t right either. If as a society we’re talking about real women and true beauty it not only encompasses the sizes 14, but the 00 as well. I’m 5’11’’, 125 pounds and I’m real too dammit.
I would like to see women of all sizes in magazines. I too would like to see what the latest fashions might look like on ME, not on someone who is a size 2 and usually looks good in everything. I too think there should be a balance...not all one size.
I think, in response to Kahla, it's the people who put out the magazines that want these women to be a certain size. Although women might aspire to want to be something else, it is not as accepted and I think that's where the "negative comments on skinner models" comes from. Being a size 0 is portrayed as the "norm" when it's really not.
The Times of London? I assume then that it's an English paper which would mean that a size 4 (in UK measurements) is a US size 0. So honestly her point still stands. But again just because the average size is larger I feel there has been an attack on naturally slim woman- every one's body types are different, and I find it just as insulting when people describe skinnier girls as 'scrawny' as when they talk about 'plus-size' models. For example, the whole 'real women have curves' I'm relatively petite and fairly straight up and down but does my biology make me less of a woman than someone described as voluptuous? I can at times find that attitude just as hurtful as any other woman of any other, perhaps larger, size would.
Post a Comment